Does Time Exist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

A sound occurs regardless of one hearing or not. The receiver bit does not make sense.
Whether we like it or not sounds occur listening to it or not.
Sound does not rely on a receptor,
Sound occurs and the receptor is only confirming it heard it it does not help it occur.

---

Think of it like this. Sound is created by our eardrums from vibrations/waves that travel through the air like ripples in water. A tree falling in the forest vibrates the air, but with no eardrums to convert those vibrations to sound, there's no sound. Sound itself is created in our heads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calidore

Think of it like this. Sound is created by our eardrums from vibrations/waves that travel through the air like ripples in water. A tree falling in the forest vibrates the air, but with no eardrums to convert those vibrations to sound, there's no sound. Sound itself is created in our heads.

---

Or those vibrations in the air can be considered sound, which simply aren't perceived as the sound of a tree falling because they weren't converted to sensory data by a being with ears.

What if a clinically deaf person were walking through the woods? The fact that he or she couldn't perceive the sound doesn't necessarily mean the falling tree made no sound. A hearing person walking through the woods with the deaf person could perceive the sound of the falling tree. Does the tree only make a sound for the person with hearing? Or does the hearing person merely perceive the sound that the deaf person doesn't?

And since we're talking about sensory data, if a tree falls in the forest but no one's around to see it, does it make a sight?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anton Hermes

Or those vibrations in the air can be considered sound, which simply aren't perceived as the sound of a tree falling because they weren't converted to sensory data by a being with ears.

What if a clinically deaf person were walking through the woods? The fact that he or she couldn't perceive the sound doesn't necessarily mean the falling tree made no sound. A hearing person walking through the woods with the deaf person could perceive the sound of the falling tree. Does the tree only make a sound for the person with hearing? Or does the hearing person merely perceive the sound that the deaf person doesn't?

And since we're talking about sensory data, if a tree falls in the forest but no one's around to see it, does it make a sight?

---

Is it possible to apply to the whole tree falling scenario, that if it makes no sound, and makes no 'sight', then...
If a tree fell in the woods, and nobody knew about it (ever), then, did it actually fall?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Volya

Is it possible to apply to the whole tree falling scenario, that if it makes no sound, and makes no 'sight', then...
If a tree fell in the woods, and nobody knew about it (ever), then, did it actually fall?

---

When we are there and we hear the sound, we then know that if it falls, it makes a sound. We don't have to be so stupid as to have to be there to hear it again. It's like anything else we know, if we know. You wouldn't cross the street with a big Mac coming at you in order to make sure your ash is no longer. Would you? Berkeley was retarded in posing that question if he actually thought it was questionable. There are stupid questions.

"Life is hard. If you are stupid, it is harder." ~ John Wayne

"Get off your horses and drink your milk for now." ~ John Wayne

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

When we are there and we hear the sound, we then know that if it falls, it makes a sound. We don't have to be so stupid as to have to be there to hear it again. It's like anything else we know, if we know. You wouldn't cross the street with a big Mac coming at you in order to make sure your ash is no longer. Would you? Berkeley was retarded in posing that question if he actually thought it was questionable. There are stupid questions.

"Life is hard. If you are stupid, it is harder." ~ John Wayne

"Get off your horses and drink your milk for now." ~ John Wayne

---

Sorry if it wasn't clear, my point was to oppose people who think that it would make no noise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Volya

Sorry if it wasn't clear, my point was to oppose people who think that it would make no noise.

---

Glad!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Volya

Is it possible to apply to the whole tree falling scenario, that if it makes no sound, and makes no 'sight', then...
If a tree fell in the woods, and nobody knew about it (ever), then, did it actually fall?

---

A tree falling has nothing to do with sight. If no one is around then no one saw the act of it falling, but it still fell. Again motion (and gravity) are primary qualities. If you walk into the forest post-fall you will see where the tree fell. There is empirical data.

Sound is a secondary quality. Without the receptor, it is a series of arbitrary waves, useless. A clinically deaf person (without any AT) does not possess the receptors to convert the waves into sound, and therefore there is no sound for a deaf person.

But what if nobody went into the forest. Nobody ever knew the tree fell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

Sound is a secondary quality. Without the receptor, it is a series of arbitrary waves, useless. A clinically deaf person (without any AT) does not possess the receptors to convert the waves into sound, and therefore there is no sound for a deaf person.

---

But like I already said, if there's a deaf person and a hearing person there when the tree falls, the tree both makes a sound and doesn't make a sound. How can that be? It's more accurate to say that sound, in the form of longitudinal waves, is created by the falling tree and may or may not be converted into sensory data by a sentient being.

You realize that sound waves resonate through other things than human eardrums. I dispute that the concept of sound is only meaningful in terms of human perception and cognition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Volya

But what if nobody went into the forest. Nobody ever knew the tree fell.

---

Just because we don't know it fell doesn't mean it didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Volya

But what if nobody went into the forest. Nobody ever knew the tree fell.

---

Then we are lost. I'm sure Mr. Berkeley went. Not reliable. Maybe Kant did also. Not reliable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anton Hermes

But like I already said, if there's a deaf person and a hearing person there when the tree falls, the tree both makes a sound and doesn't make a sound. How can that be? It's more accurate to say that sound, in the form of longitudinal waves, is created by the falling tree and may or may not be converted into sensory data by a sentient being.

You realize that sound waves resonate through other things than human eardrums. I dispute that the concept of sound is only meaningful in terms of human perception and cognition.

---

There is no such thing as objective sound. No two people will ever hear the exact same sound, just as no two people see the exact same shade of colour. Our eyes and ears generally are not perceptive enough to pick out the subtle differences, but that is another matter.

So yes, for the non-deaf person, the waves are produced and received and a sound is created. For the deaf person, waves are produced and not received, so there is no sound. Sort of. I'm not an expert on deaf people, but as far as I understand they do "hear" the vibrations (basically the waves hitting their ears) if the sound is loud enough - which a falling tree would be. But I ignore this for the purpose of your hypothetical argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Volya

But what if nobody went into the forest. Nobody ever knew the tree fell.

---

That's the Schrodinger's cat level of metaphysics. But again, motion is not reliant on perception.

Now Charles wants a high percentage of us to be deaf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

That's the Schrodinger's cat level of metaphysics. But again, motion is not reliant on perception.

---

The best one to ask is Rush Limbaugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anton Hermes

But like I already said, if there's a deaf person and a hearing person there when the tree falls, the tree both makes a sound and doesn't make a sound. How can that be?

---

And like we're saying, the tree is making waves in the air, and our eardrums are creating sound in our head from those waves. Both the deaf and hearing person's ears are being hit by these waves, but only the working ears are making sound from those waves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anton Hermes

It's more accurate to say that sound, in the form of longitudinal waves, is created by the falling tree and may or may not be converted into sensory data by a sentient being.

---

How is that more accurate? Looks like exactly the same thing, just calling the waves themselves sound rather than the auditory sensation created from them. Sounds like six of one, half-dozen of the other.

Actually, looking it up, it is. Here's what Merriam-Webster has to say:

1. a : a particular auditory impression : tone
b : the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing
c : mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing

So it looks like you're saying C while we're saying B, and we're both right.

Calidore is pretty much right, in terms of semantics it is possible to define the sound waves as being sound. However, I think it is worthwhile to nuance the separate definitions and recognize that the material properties of sound waves are something different than the perception of those things. Even the mechanical sensations created by loud noises, like the feeling of vibration, are dependent on a number of neural receptors in your body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calidore

Looks like exactly the same thing, just calling the waves themselves sound rather than the auditory sensation created from them. Sounds like six of one, half-dozen of the other.

Actually, looking it up, it is. Here's what Merriam-Webster has to say:

1. a : a particular auditory impression : tone
b : the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing
c : mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing

So it looks like you're saying C while we're saying B, and we're both right.

---

Okay, it's a semantic parlor game and we're both right. I can live with that.

Now imagine all this did not happen and the tree never fell.
What then?
Is there ever a sound?

Anyone who would like to participate in explaining the echo effect would be great!
One I suppose would start with a tunnel as one approaches from one end shouts his name and and he or she enters the tunnel would actually miss it right?
As oppose to when one shouts their name into a tunnel while standing still should get a resounding hollow effect back of the sound of their name.
Echo effect is a delay I read but I am still not getting it.
I thought an echo was sound back like a flahsback.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Now imagine all this did not happen and the tree never fell.
What then?
Is there ever a sound?

---

I'm not touching this one

Quote:

---

Anyone who would like to participate in explaining the echo effect would be great!
One I suppose would start with a tunnel as one approaches from one end shouts his name and and he or she enters the tunnel would actually miss it right?
As oppose to when one shouts their name into a tunnel while standing still should get a resounding hollow effect back of the sound of their name.
Echo effect is a delay I read but I am still not getting it.
I thought an echo was sound back like a flahsback.

---

When you produce (or something produces) a sound, the waves travel. If they do not hit anything they will disappear. If they hit a large enough surface, say a brick wall, they will bounce back - and if they are strong enough (loud, appropriate frequency) they will bounce back into the listener's ears and become a repetition of the same sound.

Also this

I'm really not satisfied.

The premise is that sound is only sound so long as a sentient being is there to perceive it as sound. A scenario has already been presented to you that reveals the contradiction in this premise. If a deaf person and a non-deaf person observe a tree fall, the non-deaf person will also hear the crash that accompanies the fall; whereas, the deaf person will see only the tree falling, and hear nothing of the crash. Therefore, under your premise, the sound both existed and did not exist.

Take another example. You observe lightning strike in the distance, but it's too far to hear the thunder. It has been scientifically established that thunder is the sound following lightning. But you didn't hear the thunder. So you must have observed a new type of lightning, one without thunder. Right? No, you didn't. You just can't hear the thunder. The noise is still there, regardless of who is and isn't able to hear it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tim Aeus

I'm really not satisfied.

The premise is that sound is only sound so long as a sentient being is there to perceive it as sound. A scenario has already been presented to you that reveals the contradiction in this premise. If a deaf person and a non-deaf person observe a tree fall, the non-deaf person will also hear the crash that accompanies the fall; whereas, the deaf person will see only the tree falling, and hear nothing of the crash. Therefore, under your premise, the sound both existed and did not exist.

Take another example. You observe lightning strike in the distance, but it's too far to hear the thunder. It has been scientifically established that thunder is the sound following lightning. But you didn't hear the thunder. So you must have observed a new type of lightning, one without thunder. Right? No, you didn't. You just can't hear the thunder. The noise is still there, regardless of who is and isn't able to hear it.

---

Will tell Rumney to argue this one. It will dignify him. LMAO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tim Aeus

I'm really not satisfied.

The premise is that sound is only sound so long as a sentient being is there to perceive it as sound. A scenario has already been presented to you that reveals the contradiction in this premise. If a deaf person and a non-deaf person observe a tree fall, the non-deaf person will also hear the crash that accompanies the fall; whereas, the deaf person will see only the tree falling, and hear nothing of the crash. Therefore, under your premise, the sound both existed and did not exist.

---

A sound exists for the person who heard it. If another listener were placed at a different point they would hear a different sound. There is no contradiction here with the premise put forward by Charles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tim Aeus

Take another example. You observe lightning strike in the distance, but it's too far to hear the thunder. It has been scientifically established that thunder is the sound following lightning. But you didn't hear the thunder. So you must have observed a new type of lightning, one without thunder. Right? No, you didn't. You just can't hear the thunder. The noise is still there, regardless of who is and isn't able to hear it.

---

You are misunderstanding what Charles is saying, the sound waves, that is the material cause of the perception of sound, will exist regardless of any one being there to interpret them. However, sound is also the act of perceiving these waves, and as such it only exists as a product of perception. Two different phenomena that are not dependent on one another.

^ this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tim Aeus

I'm really not satisfied.

The premise is that sound is only sound so long as a sentient being is there to perceive it as sound. A scenario has already been presented to you that reveals the contradiction in this premise. If a deaf person and a non-deaf person observe a tree fall, the non-deaf person will also hear the crash that accompanies the fall; whereas, the deaf person will see only the tree falling, and hear nothing of the crash. Therefore, under your premise, the sound both existed and did not exist.

Take another example. You observe lightning strike in the distance, but it's too far to hear the thunder. It has been scientifically established that thunder is the sound following lightning. But you didn't hear the thunder. So you must have observed a new type of lightning, one without thunder. Right? No, you didn't. You just can't hear the thunder. The noise is still there, regardless of who is and isn't able to hear it.

---

Tim I agree with you.
Sound is with or without our perception of it.
The mere fact that a tree has fallen is perhaps more or less because of sound and something else.
I am in search for a formula that defines sound ie something plus something equals something.
Think of a radion or a transistor. Sound travels and so music will play regardless of us listening to it. That is sound.
The reason why one can produce sound is because it travels.
One must ask themselves this:
An what if a tree never falls. Does that mean no sound whatsoever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Tim I agree with you.
Sound is with or without our perception of it.
The mere fact that a tree has fallen is perhaps more or less because of sound and something else.
I am in search for a formula that defines sound ie something plus something equals something.
Think of a radion or a transistor. Sound travels and so music will play regardless of us listening to it. That is sound.
The reason why one can produce sound is because it travels.
One must ask themselves this:
An what if a tree never falls. Does that mean no sound whatsoever?

---

Then you'll fall. What a splash, if the swimming pool has water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Tim I agree with you.
Sound is with or without our perception of it.
The mere fact that a tree has fallen is perhaps more or less because of sound and something else.
I am in search for a formula that defines sound ie something plus something equals something.
Think of a radion or a transistor. Sound travels and so music will play regardless of us listening to it. That is sound.
The reason why one can produce sound is because it travels.
One must ask themselves this:
An what if a tree never falls. Does that mean no sound whatsoever?

---

Orphan is correct. Sound is not one thing but a series of effects. Sound is what you hear - the interaction of sound waves on your inner ear.

I'm not sure why you ask whether there's any sound if a tree doesn't fall. It will eventually, but that's not the point.

Another permutation is that if a remote recording is made of the tree falling which no-one hears, then when the recording is played back, then the sound will become manifest then.

I think the problem lies within the language where we consider sound to be a thing rather than the series of events it encompasses.

I understand what you're saying. And after further thought it seems I was quite wrong. The vibrations caused from the tree falling is like a signal. The signal will go out regardless of who or what is around. If there is someone to hear it, they hear it only after their ear has done the work of processing the information and translating it into a form that is understandable: sound.

There are signals everywhere these days. Cell phone signals, wireless internet signals, bluetooth, text messaging, etc. But the final product that we interact with is much different than the code that creates the signal. It requires a device to translate it before it's of any utility to us.

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Orphan is correct. Sound is not one thing but a series of effects. Sound is what you hear - the interaction of sound waves on your inner ear.

I'm not sure why you ask whether there's any sound if a tree doesn't fall. It will eventually, but that's not the point.

---

Well if a sound is because of its receit ie one hears a tree fall then one conclude there is sound.
I am now turning it around because every theory must cover all corners.
So I suggest the tree never falls because there many that do not does that mean sound only is because of an act?
In other words one may never hear any sound because of the act of falling never happening.
Then what?
Redefining sound, not because of something happening, but because it just is, is what I am trying to get at.
This made me think of Pavlov and the dog and and the act of salivation.
Sound and salivation is two different things.
One is and the other is because of an outside element.
I consider sound to be more then just an act and effect.
Relying on a tree falling to recordesound is not the way I would look it because it is saying unless two things happen, the tree falling and the receptor hearing it, then there is no sound.
Sound I believe already happens around us and that we do not hear all of it.

Quote:

---

Another permutation is that if a remote recording is made of the tree falling which no-one hears, then when the recording is played back, then the sound will become manifest then.

---

Again one is suggesting that sounds to be it must be recorded. The same idea as the tree.

Quote:

---

I think the problem lies within the language where we consider sound to be a thing rather than the series of events it encompasses.

---

I am more inclined to believe that sound is all around heard and not heard with or without our help.

If the tree doesn't fall then of course theres no sound...
If it does fall and theres nobody to hear it, the sound is still there. (Or rather, the vibrations and all that malarkey are still there). But it means that there will be nothing to interpret the vibrations into the 'sound' that we hear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Volya

If the tree doesn't fall then of course theres no sound...
If it does fall and theres nobody to hear it, the sound is still there. (Or rather, the vibrations and all that malarkey are still there). But it means that there will be nothing to interpret the vibrations into the 'sound' that we hear.

---

It does not matter because the fact that it has fallen means it has made a sound without us present to hear it.
I understand it like this.
Imagine the radion you hear the sound but you cannot see any pictures.
Now think TV. We can see the pictures and not hear the sound because we have turned it down.
Now by looking at the pictures we know teh sound is there be cause the pictures are moving on the screen.
We know tha moving pictures mean sound.
That would be the same a seeing the fallen tree. No sound but we know the sound was there at some stage.
Now think computers you see pictures but you cannot hear the sound.
Once you put youtube you get sound.
In other words moving pictures are because of sound waves and something else. Without sound one cannot get moving pictures.
I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

It does not matter because the fact that it has fallen means it has made a sound without us present to hear it.
I understand it like this.
Imagine the radion you hear the sound but you cannot see any pictures.
Now think TV. We can see the pictures and not hear the sound because we have turned it down.
Now by looking at the pictures we know teh sound is there be cause the pictures are moving on the screen.
We know tha moving pictures mean sound.
That would be the same a seeing the fallen tree. No sound but we know the sound was there at some stage.
Now think computers you see pictures but you cannot hear the sound.
Once you put youtube you get sound.
In other words moving pictures are because of sound waves and something else. Without sound one cannot get moving pictures.
I think.

---

This has officially crossed the line for me. I just.....I'm out. "without sound we cannot get moving pictures" - that's the line for me. I'm done with this stupidity.

....sound makes pictures...
cacian, I really think you need to go back to school and learn some basic science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Volya

....sound makes pictures...
cacian, I really think you need to go back to school and learn some basic science.

---

I do haha. One can only speculate. It is healthy.

Bottomline. Sound is molecular agitation of air. For it to occur you don't need an ear. You only need a tree falling where there are air molecules to be agitated. You need an atmosphere and a tree falling in the midst.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

This has officially crossed the line for me. I just.....I'm out. "without sound we cannot get moving pictures" - that's the line for me. I'm done with this stupidity.

---

What!!
why do you get so agitated about it all?
I am speculating about things that I find interesting. I am merely learning about things by airing ideas out be it silly false or something else.
One is allowed to make mistakes compare and hopefully pick up other things in the way.
It is propably the way I have said it.
WHat I am trying to say is that with moving images ie films sound is crucial otherwise there is not point of having a television.
What would be the point of watching television if there was no sound and only moving pictures?
No point right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

Bottomline. Sound is molecular agitation of air. For it to occur you don't need an ear. You only need a tree falling where there are air molecules to be agitated. You need an atmosphere and a tree falling in the midst.

---

Exactly. So there is something in the atmosphere that is when shaken alter a sound.
A bit like a musical instrument, a guitar strings once you string it you get sound.
The same with the atmosphere, there 'strings' or molecules of air then once vibrated or moved sounds occurs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

I am merely learning about things by airing ideas out be it silly false or something else.

---

As opposed to learning about things by doing research, which is what learning involves.

http://www.mediacollege.com/audio/01/sound-waves.html

cacian, I suggest reading through the above link to better understand how sound works.

Thanks, Volya. Excellent link.

Thank you for the link.
I was wondering whether it is possible to see and hear at the same time?

If a book is in a library, and no one is there to read it...is it still literature? But I'm sure many of you would argue about that...and have...

The "fallen tree" question is really an exercise to show how educated (and presumably intelligent) people can discuss the ridiculous.

If the same tree is in the woods in the bright sunshine, is it visible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

If a book is in a library, and no one is there to read it...is it still literature? But I'm sure many of you would argue about that...and have...

The "fallen tree" question is really an exercise to show how educated (and presumably intelligent) people can discuss the ridiculous.

If the same tree is in the woods in the bright sunshine, is it visible?

---

I introduced it as a more earthly analogy to the original question - did not expect it to derail the whole matter.